VDI HD size?

[sgrinker]

This may seem like an odd question, and is obviously subject to any number of variables. However, we've lately been tossing around different numbers for what our standard template HD sizes really should be. Obviously these days with a normal desktop HD, it's hard to get anything under 100GB sometimes.

Curious to find out what size others are going with in their configurations, and more so why? We're just looking to maximize SAN space overall, but still allow enough room for anything that may need to be installed, etc, etc...

Thanks in advance for the input

Steve

[mreferre]

Most of the time my customers are thinking about a range like 10 - 20 GB.

Of course everything is based on the fact that user data will not be hosted on the c: drive .... but I think we are aligned on that right ?

Massimo.

[sgrinker]

Of course everything is based on the fact that user

data will not be hosted on the c: drive .... but I

think we are aligned on that right ?

"We" as in you and I personally... yes. Unfortunately I can't say that's 100% true for the current desktop situation here. We as in our entire internal IT group have some work to do in that arena. That includes both education of the users, folder redirection, etc. etc. We have well over 100 staff members in IT, so not everyone has always been on the same page there.

All of that asside though, we definitely intend on not having any user data stored locally on the virtual machines though.

So, for simplification of discussion, let's just go on that assumption.

[mreferre]

I see what you mean Steve ....

This is typical. I have also met customers interested in doing VDI just because they could continue to let users "do what the f****ing want to do" yet achieving strong level of data security, and data privacy. Just to sympatize with you and your frustration of end-users' attitude of saving their files on c:\data\ .

Unfortunately this requires personal desktops (i.e. non pooled) and it's not the best scenario for an IT admin.

Massimo.

[sgrinker]

Unfortunately this requires personal desktops (i.e.

non pooled) and it's not the best scenario for an IT

admin.

Thankfully though the "stickiness" feature in the Leostream broker (and others) does help with that a little. At least you can have a user assigned to a pool, and then have the machine stay with them. Downside still being overhead of keeping track of which machine is which, etc, etc.

[GBromage]

I'm using 10Gb at the moment, for a pilot program.

Of course, having users assigned a random VM from a pool should cure them of the idea of saving to the local drive fairly quickly, I would think.

[TomHowarth]

I'm using 10Gb at the moment, with the application set loaded it gives about 3Gb spare.

we have locked down the VM so the lovely users cannot use the space and all my Docs etc has been redirected to their network homedrive, this is also true of their cookies, favourites etc. the only local item is the spooler. I have not informed them of stickyness evil arn't I sometimes it is just better to protect them from themselves. I do live in the nanny state afterall.

UK or Europe (you take your choice)

[sgrinker]

Ok, good... doesn't sound like we are too far off the norm currently at 15 GB. We were just tossing around the idea of making that smaller on the next round of machines.

[epping]

10GB at present and have not run into problems on the trial phase.

[Mr__V]

This may seem like an odd question, and is obviously

subject to any number of variables. However, we've

lately been tossing around different numbers for what

our standard template HD sizes really should be.

Obviously these days with a normal desktop HD, it's

hard to get anything under 100GB sometimes.

Curious to find out what size others are going with

in their configurations, and more so why? We're just

looking to maximize SAN space overall, but still

allow enough room for anything that may need to be

installed, etc, etc...

Thanks in advance for the input

Steve

Steve -

I am Yves Gattegno, inventor and architect of Neoware Image Manager.

This product is what we call now an "OS Streaming" or "Disk Streaming" product. It creates virtual disks that clients (VMs or PMs) can use to boot off over the LAN.

Our virtual disks are shared, which is a cool thing in the VDI space : instead of having one Virtual HD per VM, you can have one Virtual HD that many VMs use AT THE SAME TIME. This saves storage space, and eases maintenance tasks (no deployment anymore, only one HD to maintain/patch).

But in order to be useful, this requires that all the clients that use the same disk be supposed to be used by the same kind of users. It is not a product that will fit a scenario when you want the users to be able to do "whatever they ******* want"

Neoware Image Manager is the heir of Qualystem LanPC, that was introduced in 1999 (running Windows 98). The Windows XP/2000 version (LanPC3) was released in 2002.

Now that I have introduced myself and what I know about virtualized HDD, I can tell you about what I learnt in during 5 years of virtualized desktop/HDDs.

The largest virtual HDDs that I know our users are actually using in production are 15GB. These users are Universities and Training Centers.

15GB contain ALL the applications that one of their users can ever need.

Of course, users data are not stored in the virtualized HDDs, they are in home directories or redirected "My documents" folders.

And this scenario works when the users are not supposed to be able to install durably their own apps or to store their own data in the system HDDs.

Another way of thinking is that one can use one System HDD (C:, contains \Windows), one Application HDD (D:, contains "\Program Files") , one user drive (E:, contains "\Documents and Settings", temp folders and swap file etc).

In that scenario, the C: can be 2 to 4GB, the 😧 4 to 10GB and the E: 4 to 10GB

BTW, these numbers are for Windows XP. For Vista, you need around 10GB just for the OS, so you can anticipate much more need in storage

HTH

\- Yves

[davlloyd · Accepted solution]

For production users we went into pilot at 15GB, during the pilot it was noted that machines were running on average at about 60% disk utilisation. As a result the standard disk offering is now 12GB.

As our users have extensive application profiles there should be oppurtinity to gain further for those users that do nto have extensive local application install sets.

Development users are a completely different kettle of fish though.... expect these to be hungry.